Darwin himself may perhaps have glimpsed this sinister presence coiled like a worm in the very heart of evolutionary naturalism: "With me," says Darwin, 'the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?'
Ah, yes ... yet another out-of-context quote, a splendid example of creationoid "research." Here is that same sentence fragment (shown in blue) with the surrounding text included:
... there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation-and no doubt of the conservation of energy-of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?In the actual letter, Darwin isn't discussing evolution at all. Not even close. He's discussing the role of chance and purpose in the universe, and the blue part expresses his doubts about his conclusions. This is irrelevant to evolution. Further, note how the bogus quote falsely begins in mid-sentence, in an attempt to disguise that it is snatched from a larger bit of writing.
From a letter to W. GRAHAM, dated July 3rd, 1881. Source: here.
All creation "science" is fraudulent.
Call it "Creation Science Fiction."
Matchett-PI is truly one of the more blatantly dishonest posters on these threads. To post something as true knowing that it has already been shown to be false cannot be considered a mistake but rather an outright attempt at lying. Of course, when your cause is right, you shouldn't be held to such standards as the 10 Commandments.
non-fraudulent placemarker
Actually his wording is similar to things being said by cognitive neuroscientists.
Science is, in its own way, an institution cobbled together to overcome some of our mental shortcomings. Primarily our tendency to see patterns in ambiguous stimuli and to attribute cause and effect to phenomena that occur near to each other in time.
I have this hilarious picture in my mind of you and your friends flitting from thread to thread in your "full-blown" flowing red capes with the words "creationoid filth and fraud police" embroidered in big yellow letters on the back.
Those in the Darwinian cult who embrace his blind-faith macro-evolution mystery religion are entitled to their opinions, but they can't expect to be taken seriously by those capable of critical thought and intellectual honesty.
... "With me... the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?'" Charles Darwin
"Ah, yes ... yet another out-of-context quote,...In the actual letter, Darwin isn't discussing evolution at all. Not even close. He's discussing the role of chance and purpose in the universe, and the blue part expresses his doubts about his conclusions. This is irrelevant to evolution. ..."
I report - the intellectually honest critical thinkers can decide what's relevant and whether Darwin's religion ("macroevolution") has anything to do with the role of "chance" or not:
The Materialistic / Naturalistic / Evolutionary / Darwinistic Religious View:
The universe was created by chance events without ultimate purpose.
Man is the product of impersonal time plus chance plus matter.
Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod comments in his Chance and Necessity, “[Man] is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged by chance…” and, “…chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution….”
Noted evolutionist J. W. Burrow writes in his introduction to The Origin of Species: "Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance."
"Gould has written that if we could rewind the "tape" of evolution and replay it, the result would not be the same (Gould 1989). Among other things, humans are almost certain not to re-evolve. This is because the number of contingent causes (asteroids hitting the earth, continental drift, cosmic radiation, the likelihood of significant individuals mating and producing progeny, etc) are so high that it is unlikely they would occur again in the same sequence, or even occur at all. If an asteroid hadn't hit the Yucátan Peninsula 65 million years ago, for example, mammals probably would never have diversified, as they didn't in the 100 million years before that." ~ John Wilkins
“Secular humanism” or “scientific materialism” assumes man is the end product of the chance workings of an impersonal cosmos.
Etc., etc. .... ad infinitum Hahahaha